Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord’s Choice: Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction for Landlord’s Bonafide Need

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a decision, the Delhi High Court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh, upheld an eviction order under Section 14(1)€ of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, reinforcing the principle that a landlord’s bonafide need must be respected and the tenant cannot impose their standards on the suitability of the premises.

The case, involving the eviction of Shop No. 1 in Green Park, New Delhi, revolved around the landlord’s requirement to utilize the property for starting a consultancy and a boutique for his wife. The Court meticulously analyzed the facts and legal aspects, ultimately finding the landlord’s need to be bonafide and justified.

Justice Singh’s observation was pivotal in the ruling: “The landlord’s subjective choice of choosing one accommodation out of the others available with him has to be respected by the Court. The Court cannot compel the landlord to choose another accommodation to satisfy his said need.” This statement underlines the respect for a landlord’s autonomy in decisions regarding their property.

The Court also clarified the scope of a tenant’s right to challenge the landlord’s need for the property. It was noted that the tenant’s role does not extend to questioning the landlord’s choice of business or the specific premises they find suitable for their purposes. The landlord’s right to choose the most suitable premises for their intended business was emphasized, especially when the choice is made with a clear business rationale, as in the case of choosing a front-facing shop in a market for better visibility.

The judgment also touched on the principles of estoppel in property law, where a tenant is estopped from disputing the landlord’s ownership after acknowledging it through actions such as paying rent.

Date of Decision: November 22, 2023

RAJNI BAHL (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS VS ARUN KUMAR NAYYAR        

Latest Legal News